Re: Wikipedia crackpottey

On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 19:47:20 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 11/13/2024 07:35 PM, bertietaylor wrote:

On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 21:21:32 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>

On 11/13/2024 12:35 PM, bertietaylor wrote:

Any relativist chappie around that may perhaps admit that after
contemplating the inertia violation experiment done by Arindam's new
design electromagentic rail gun, Einstein's 1905 paper "On the
electrodynamics of moving bodies" which heavily depended upon the notion
of inertia for the validity of e=mc^2, gets comprehensively trashed?

>
The e = mc^2 is just the first term in a Taylor series expansion
of K.E.

>
Evidently the most significant one.

>
The infinitely-many rest of them are non- or "un-" linear.

>
In one dimension, the mass energy relation on a kinetic and
non-destructive basis was found by Arindam Banerjee in 1998 - it is
e=0.5mVVN(N-k) using which he transformed physics.

>
A Meissnerized ingot may experience inertial "heft",
with regards to electro-motive force, and various
super-classical concerns, with regards to theories
like those of Fritz London, for whom the most and best
initial developments in superconductivity arrived,
then as with regards to the regions and so on.

>
Word salad.
Arindam's 2 second video of inertia violation with his new design
railgun updated classical physics (minus inertia, conservation laws of
momentum and energy) and busts Einsten-Feynman physics.

>
The mechanics, "is", an inertial-system.

>
Yes, and when that is busted by experiment, then the whole thing
collapses. F=BiL or Maxwellian electrodynamics is back, with aether and
wave motion, and light speed variance. Infinite, eternal universe. Cold
cores of stellar bodies.
>
In short, Arindam rules from now.
>
Woof-woof,
Bertietaylor

>
What you do is hit the ingot to spinning first off
the compulsator to give it some heft, then launch it.
>
Mechanics as usually relayed is, "under-defined".
>
Infinitely-many higher orders of acceleration and all, ....

>
Some people say "there's no ether theory", yet we have
here a little guy named "Albert Einstein" who in his
1920 "Sidelights on Relativity" asserts that there is.

Einstein merely admits that there is an aether theory. Does not accept
its factual must-be existential reality as the medium for
electromagnetic waves. His whole idea was to vanish the FACT of aether
to a mere theory. Which had to be done on order to progress his particle
physics

>
>
Then there it seems you're getting into the vis-viva
versus the vix-motrix, it's an entirely old-fasioned
considered gathering dust since hundreds of years ago,
though that some have turned up as relevant theoretically.
>
Like DesCartes' "vortices" or "subtle matter" or
Kelvin's "vortices", all the non- or un-linear
components, then here as with regards to "heft"
as in the classical mechanics the contribution
to inertia, what the merry-go-round gives.